I agree, which is why I don't support any propositions where such would happen, as with what you propose.
Here's the kicker, our current system (yours too, over there across the pond) does the same thing. In fact, it's worse. It GUARANTEES that innocents will be caught up, due to sheer numbers of people being processed through the system.
My system, while it recognizes that it's possible, doesn't guarantee that such a high number of innocents will be caught up in it. If anything, it guarantees that the minimal amount of innocent people, if not fewer, will be caught up in it.
That's just a soundbite with nothing in support.
Soundbite? No.
Nothing in support? Sure it has, just look at Singapore's crime rates for the last few years.
That isn't a valid argument against my position.
What if the "judge above him" isn't sufficiently able to handle the case or the one above him?
You should go read Exodus 18 again. Look at the system Jethro (a pagan, nonetheless, who's idea was good enough to be included by God in His word) came up with for a system of judges.
And then look at the result.
Your proposed "system" would be rife with problems.
Such as?
Your "system" would be a nightmare. A judge is human and even with the best intent and study of the evidence, there'd be a plethora of mistakes,
Which is why if the judge feels like he would make a mistake, he would appeal the case to a judge above him, who would inherently have more time to weigh all the options before coming to a decision.
And if the judge does not feel like he is capable of taking any responsibility, then he would (hopefully) recognize such and step down as a judge.
not to mention the stress you're placing on people to try and come to the right decision where someone's life hangs in the balance. There would be inevitable errors in judgement.
People?
There would be one judge over each case, no jury, no lawyers. Just the judge, the accused, and the accuser.
By the way, have I mentioned that the pressure on someone who's reputation is on the line (as well as the accountability for any wrongful convictions) tends to make even the most wicked judges make the right decision?
I have never said that the judges would make such decisions lightly.
:doh:
A good judge can do all of that and still make the wrong decision, especially in more convoluted cases.
Give an example. Please. Be sure to present all known evidence.
You are childishly simplistic where it comes to this.
That is an ad hominem. It's not a valid argument.
Please attack my argument, and not me. Thank you.
Stress can lead to oversights and errors in judgement, no matter how unintended.
I agree. And yet, consider that with such a system, more resources are available to the authorities (because of less crime, fewer court cases under way, etc.), they can use those resources to be much more thorough in their search for evidence that would lead to a conviction. No stone left unturned.
The current system is hardly keeping up, and have practically legalized lesser crimes to an extent recently because of it.
Your "system" would only increase the amount of mistakes.
No it won't. (Hitchens' Razor)
Unless you agree that the DP should only be carried out where 100% proof of guilt has been ascertained
If someone has stolen a bike, then the evidence, no matter how hard the criminal tries to hide it, will point to them having stolen a bike. If someone beat someone up, then the evidence will point to that person as having beat the other person up. If someone murdered someone, then the evidence, no matter how hard the criminal tries to hide it, will point to them as having murdered that person.
then you're supporting a system where innocent people would be wrongfully convicted and executed, which you admit is evil. Your system wouldn't eradicate the possibility of that at all.
Because no system is perfect (because any system that involves humans in any way is inherently imperfect), there will be mistakes made.
The goal is not to eliminate mistakes, but to reduce them to the point where the number is essentially zero.
A 4.1% error rate, with the crime rate we have today, results in a number of innocents being wrongly convicted much, much, much greater than zero.
The data show that killing murderers is followed by more killings.
Then those murderers should be put to death. It's as simple as that.
If the state holds human life cheaply, the population goes along with it.
All are equal under the law. If someone commits a crime, he is to be punished for his crime.
God says to put people who deserve to die to death, and to not kill the innocent. If that's not a respect for the life of the innocent, I don't know what is.
A murderer's life is forfeit the moment he murders. Same with a rapist's, same with the adulterer's, etc. It profanes God to keep any of them alive, when they should not live.
As you see, states without a death penalty tend to have fewer of those.
All I see is that all 50 states, regardless of having the death penalty have extremely high crime rates, with many innocent people being caught up in the system.
And they have zero innocent people condemned to death,
They also don't have any criminals worthy of death being put to death either, which violates God's commands...
which is a much greater wrong than a guilty person escaping punishment.
*sigh* No, it's just as bad to let criminals go free as it is to kill an innocent person.
So a system that does not kill murderers has FEWER innocent people inherently getting caught up.
Again, it also has more criminals still living, which means far more crime than if they were properly punished, which results in more strain on the legal system, which results in fewer resources available to the authorities to use to find and prosecute criminals, which results in more mistakes being made in judgments, which results in more innocent people being caught up in the system, which means that more criminals get away with their crimes, which encourages them to commit more crime, resulting in a higher crime rate, which puts more strain on the system... etc... etc... etc.........
It's a bad feedback loop that is hard to break.
If the state does not kill murderers, we have fewer innocent people dying for both reasons.
You also have more murderers who have the possibility of escaping from prison to murder again, raising the crime rate even more.
Do you see the problem with this yet?
"Let him who is without sin first throw a stone."
He shamed a crowd seeking vengeance into abandoning the death penalty for an adulterous woman.
He shamed a group of conspirators who were trying to trick Jesus into a premature encounter with the government, which would go against his plan for salvation.
You don't seem to be aware of the political situation at the time. The people of Israel were under Roman rule, and were not allowed by the Romans to even try a criminal for his crimes, let alone put an adulterer/ess to death. They had to take them to the Roman authorities for them to deal with the criminal.
By bringing the woman (and not surprisingly, not the man who would have been found with her (they did say they caught her in the act, or perhaps I'm misremembering the passage)) to Jesus instead of the authorities, they themselves were guilty.
You also seem to have forgotten that Jesus, who is God, has the authority to forgive someone of their sins.
NOWHERE did Jesus repeal the death penalty.
See above. When did Jesus advocate having the state kill people?
When He did not repeal the death penalty. :think:
In general, justice is well-served if it's laid on a jury of one's peers.
So bringing people together who have no sense of right and wrong are best suited to serve justice?
:think:
You've been sold a bill of goods, Barb.
Here's a list of reasons why juries don't work.
- Justice by committee is a failure. Judges must once again become responsible for courtroom results.
- Juries have no accountability. Group action creates excuses and tends to dilute responsibility.
- A murderer prefers a committee to a judge, knowing that a jury increases his chance to evade justice.
- The wrongly accused stands a better chance of exoneration from a trained judge than an amateur jury.
- Even an evil judge has a reputation to consider, but a jury disbands into nonexistence.
- Men have been sold a bill of goods supposing that security lies in justice by committee.
- The criminal justice system must protect the innocent from, not subject them to, the public.
- Judges cannot be held accountable for jury decisions, but can be prosecuted for negligent bench verdicts.
- The jury selection process typically involves seeking the most uninformed and apathetic.
- Systematic government accountability should exist where feasible.
- Today, a chain of accountability exists for a toilet purchase, but none for a kidnapper’s trial.
- Criminal justice ranks as government’s primary responsibility, thus courts need accountability.
- If a jury wrongly lets a murderer go to kill again, there is no accountability procedure. |
There's a good reason places like North Korea don't use juries.
And yet you advocate killing more innocent people.
I do not. Please stop making this false accusation.
You do. Not only would the imposition of death penalty in all states increase the murder rate,
It wouldn't. :idunno: And even if it did, with the death penalty being swift and painful, the government could react appropriately and put any new murderers to death. And on it would go until there are no more people willing to commit murder for fear of being put to death for it. The murder rate would drop within a 3 days, if not overnight.
the imposition of a rapid execution would have killed all those innocent people who were wrongly condemned. Your way means more innocent people die.
No, it wouldn't. It means more innocent people would be saved because those criminals would fear the punishment handed down by the authorities, and restrain themselves from committing a crime, resulting in less crime......... Need I go on? It seems redundant at this point...
Then those murderers should have been put to death, until there are no more murderers left, instead of giving up halfway and letting the remaining murderers go free.
Please don't claim my words as your own.
Yes. Some people are more concerned with killing wrongdoers than in protecting the innocent.
Or perhaps you don't understand that punishing criminals is inherently life saving. It deters criminals from committing crimes they would have otherwise committed, including murder, which saves the would-be victims of those crimes from being harmed.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/09/29/the-death-penalty-saves-lives-by-deterring-crime
Mine still assumes innocence until proven guilty.
A person is guilty as soon as they commit a crime. Mine still, though, presumes innocence until shown to be guilty, as per Deuteronomy 22:22-27.
Still sends convicted criminals to prison. It works.
And innocent people too... a large number of them.
Something you conveniently keep leaving out from your arguments.
Better than anything anyone else has come up with. Sorry about your system.
So you reject God's justice system because "we came up with something better"?
Talk about arrogant...
If you had your way, they'd be dead.
No, they wouldn't be caught up in the system in the first place.
Rapid executions would have killed them all before they could prove their innocence.
Wrong.
Rapid punishments of KNOWN criminals would free up resources to be used in determining the harder cases.
